|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Impossibility Of The Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Watching the debates on this forum, something has struck me.
There are various views we could take with regard to the Flood: (1) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened. (2) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen. (3) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen. (4) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened. Now, the curious thing that strikes me is that when creationists argue for the "vapor canopy", or whatever, trying to make the Flood explicable in natural terms, they are arguing for proposition (4). But this is no use to them. By analogy, I am convinced that thunder and lightning happen, and that they are possible without a miracle, since they can be explained in purely natural terms. For this reason, I don't take their existence as evidence for Thor the Thunder God, because I have a naturalistic explanation for it. In the same way, if someone could convince me that the Flood happened and that it was possible without a miracle, then I wouldn't see this as evidence for Jehovah the Genocide God, because the creationists would also have furnished me with a naturalistic explanation. I'd be able to say: "Sure, the flood happened, but we can explain it perfectly well by the vapor canopy theory, without need for any divine intervention. So that's how it happened, and the fact that the Hebrews attributed it to their god instead of the vapor canopy is of no more significance that the fact that the Norse attributed thunder and lightning to Thor." Surely what creationists need to argue for is proposition (1): that the evidence shows that the Flood happened, and that it contravenes the laws of nature and so requires a miraculous explanation. Discuss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It doesn't appear that you want to discuss the science involved (that is, did the flood happen or not) but rather the philosophical or theological issues involved.
If that is true is this a Bible Study thread or a Social Issues thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'd have stuck it in "Geology And The Great Flood" or "Is It Science?" Not Social Issues or "Bible Study".
Maybe "Is It Science?" would be best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Maybe "Is It Science?" would be best. Then I don't understand where you want to take the thread. If you want to discuss the use of miracles that isn't going to fit in any science thread. Could you offer a bit of an idea of how the discussion might unfold?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Then I don't understand where you want to take the thread. If you want to discuss the use of miracles that isn't going to fit in any science thread. Could you offer a bit of an idea of how the discussion might unfold? I have absolutely no idea what creationists will reply to this, that's why I raised the question. Please put it in "Is It Science?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zucadragon Member Posts: 147 From: Netherlands Joined: |
In simple terms, basically what you are argueing is:
Creationists want to see the flood as a miracle that was done by god but because they have scientific standards to hold to they want to explain it scientifically.Yet they dont realize that if the flood happened and it is scientifically explained... Then there is no god factor involved anymore, because the explenation will be a natural one. So even if they turn out to be right, it will leave no way for them to point to god and say "he did it".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2423 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In simple terms, basically what you are arguing is: Creationists want the miracle to be confirmed by science -- that is, they want the scientific evidence to confirm their beliefs and give them the credibility of science. But when science shows that the evidence for a global flood about 4,350 years ago is totally lacking, they don't want to believe what science has found. It is a case of accepting only positive results and ignoring or denying any negative results. Creation "science" at its best! Edited by Coyote, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 3015 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible. Without God, the Bible isn't accurate, though: Noah's Ark would just be another mythicized version of a flood story in a region replete with floods, like Gilgamesh. As long as the Bible includes God, the entire thing is suspect until God is verified. They, of all people, should know that you can't prove the accuracy of the Bible without proving God's existence and characteristics. I'm Thylacosmilus. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Without God, the Bible isn't accurate, though: Noah's Ark would just be another mythicized version of a flood story in a region replete with floods, like Gilgamesh. As long as the Bible includes God, the entire thing is suspect until God is verified. They, of all people, should know that you can't prove the accuracy of the Bible without proving God's existence and characteristics. I was thinking more along the lines of: The Bible says there was a flood.Look, there really was a flood. Ergo, the Bible was correct about the flood. They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god. Even if it is "just another mythicized version of a flood story", it would still be correct in that it happened. For it to not have happened at all shows an inerrancy in the Bible and the literalists cannot have that, so they try to prove that the flood did exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 325 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: This, of course, is a logical error: Affirming the Consequent. This is where you say: A -> BB, therefore A The problem is that there may be other things that result in B. All squares are rectangles (being a square implies being a rectangle), but not all rectangles are squares (having a rectangle does not imply you have a square.) However, the contrapositive of a true statement is always true: A -> B~B, therefore ~A That's part of why there has to be a flood: They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart. It doesn't occur to them that perhaps god doesn't exist the way they think. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: This, of course, is a logical error: Affirming the Consequent. This is where you say: A -> BB, therefore A The problem is that there may be other things that result in B. All squares are rectangles (being a square implies being a rectangle), but not all rectangles are squares (having a rectangle does not imply you have a square.)
Meh, not so much. The conclusion is not the same as the first premise..... What is concluded is that the Bible is correct in saying that a flood occured. The conclusion is not that the Bible does, in fact, say that there was a flood.
A -> B ~B, therefore ~A That's part of why there has to be a flood: They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart. It doesn't occur to them that perhaps god doesn't exist the way they think. That's pretty much what I was saying, or trying to say. They have to show that the flood occured so they can show that their theology has been pinned correctly. If there wasn't a flood, then the Bible is not inerrant and their whole theology falls apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 325 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: As you say, meh, not so much. The conclusion is precisely the same as the premise. They assume that if there were a global flood, this means their claim of god is true. It never occurs to them that it might be a different god (after all, the story of Noah is just a rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim and I doubt they're going to give allegiance to the Sumerian gods) or that something else might have caused the flood. If Joe is the Stabbing Killer, then we should find a body that was killed by stabbing. But just because we find a body that was killed by stabbing doesn't necessarily mean that Joe is the one who did it. If the god mentioned in the Bible is the Flooding Killer, then we should find evidence of a global flood. But just because we find evidence of a global flood doesn't necessarily mean that the god mentioned in the Bible was the one who did it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As you say, meh, not so much. The conclusion is precisely the same as the premise. Not in the argument that I provided.
They assume that if there were a global flood, this means their claim of god is true. It never occurs to them that it might be a different god (after all, the story of Noah is just a rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim and I doubt they're going to give allegiance to the Sumerian gods) or that something else might have caused the flood. That's a different argument than the one I provided. Fail.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025